Whether or not you agree with the legal reasoning used by the
California Supreme Court when it struck down Santa Clara County’s
open space assessment, this much is clear: It makes life even more
difficult for cash-strapped local governments.
Property owners in the areas covered by the Santa Clara County
Open Space Authority narrowly approved a $20 a year assessment and
have been paying it for seven years.
1. Seven years of paying for open space in limbo
Whether or not you agree with the legal reasoning used by the California Supreme Court when it struck down Santa Clara County’s open space assessment, this much is clear: It makes life even more difficult for cash-strapped local governments.
Property owners in the areas covered by the Santa Clara County Open Space Authority narrowly approved a $20 a year assessment and have been paying it for seven years.
The California Supreme Court sided with Silicon Valley Taxpayers Association, a taxpayer advocacy group that lost in a lower court and appealed to the state’s highest court. The group contended that because the open spaces that the assessment would purchase would benefit all residents, not just property owners, the assessment was illegal under Proposition 218 because only property owners voted on the fee.
2. Ruling has short and long-term consequences
Short term, the ruling means that more than $50 million collected by the Open Space Authority cannot be used to purchase land, and will likely have to be returned to property owners. Long term, the ruling makes it that much more difficult for local governments to find ways to fund services.
The ruling also points to the flaws in our state’s initiative process, which does an end run our republican system of government. In a republic, voters elect representatives who weigh complicated issues, negotiate nuanced legislation to address those issues, and vote on that legislation. If voters don’t like their representatives’ decisions, they can refuse to re-elect their representatives.
Instead, with propositions like 218, voters decide complicated issues by voting on take-it-or-leave-it legislation that is more often than not seriously flawed.
3. The initiative process has become a flawed mess
Then voters are left with unintended consequences like Prop 218, which has had the practical effect of saying that property owners cannot vote to tax themselves to pay for open space preservation that benefits the entire community.
